C
Church_Militant
Guest
But if I’m right…I’ve won EVERYTHING.
Ever hear of Pascal’s Wager?
- Status
Ever hear of Pascal’s Wager?
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Church Militant:
Never heard of it. Please tell me about it.
J
jimmy
Guest
I must, I must.
J
Jadesfire20
Guest
I believe you’re referring to the “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis. Much of this work was done by Douglas Wallace (who is in my dept!) and others who basically founded the field of mitochondrial genetics. Mitochondria contain their own DNA which is completely separate from that in the nucleus. Because mitochondria are only inherited maternally and mitochondrial DNA sequences change very slowly in comparison to nuclear DNA, one can use this to trace the origins of a group of people. They identified several mitochondrial “haplotypes” across the globe and traced their origins back to africa. However I don’t believe its clear whether “Eve” was one woman or a group.
J
jimmy
Guest
That is pretty interesting. I never knew that the mitochondria were exclusively inherited from the mother.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
No it isn’t.
(It is based on some god, but it is not a scientific theory.)
Well, a “miracle” involving the sun should be witnessed half around the globe, not only at one place.
Thousands claim to have been abducted by aliens. Do you believe in UFOs?
Or, how about hinduism.co.za/miracles.htm -
Ready to become a Hindu, the “scientific” evidence is huge?
Excuse me, while I remain sceptical. Esp. when a huge amount of money is earned with such “miracles”.
Yes, I’ll do that.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
No?
Then what about the good old “nothing can come from nothing”? Are you telling me, there are things in this very universe, that are uncaused?
Thanks for disproving the Aquinate proof of God.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Church Militant:
We are talking about it right now.
This is a joke, isn’t it?
We are talking about it right now.
H
Heathen_Dawn
Guest
Precisely my point. Intelligent Design is a stepping up to answer the atheists’ demand on their own terms: prove God using science. Their response? Saying it’s not science.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
H
Heathen_Dawn
Guest
Personally, since I’m not in the business of converting others to my beliefs, I don’t care. But anyone who did have a stake in convincing you of the existence of God would say debate with you were impossible, as debate is predicated on both parties being willing to change their minds, and your house rules for this debate guarantee that you will never do so.
No stranger, I must say, than the mind-boggling hypotheses cosmologists come with to explain the origin of the universe without God. Such as emerging out of nothing in a random quantum fluctuation, or being the result of selection among multiple universes (a violation of Occam’s Razor if there ever was one).
I didn’t say we already had it. The problem with the supernatural is that it’s a different kind of matter than what we’re used to, and we haven’t the instrumentation to detect it. People do see it when leaving the body or having raised their sensitivity, but that, I know, is subjective experience. I’ll just say I think the current state (of having no instrumentation for the supernatural) will change. Now you may see this as admission of defeat, of lack of proof, of inability to bring objective evidence, on my part; you may see it that way, but I think if you see it that way then you’re only resting upon the gaps of knowledge. Naturalism of the gaps is no better than God of the gaps.
Addendum re my previous post: I’m an evolutionist, I don’t think ID has any merit as regards factuality. But I sympathise with ID in principle, and I think it has epistemological merit, and portrays much-needed scepticism. Far from being an affront to science, the emergence of ID just tells us how highly esteemed science is in our day and age—so much so that even religious fundamentalists recruit science to support their beliefs.
D
Drew98
Guest
Sure. But it doesn’t explain why I don’t get a response.
I not “testing God”. I’m testing the claim of human beings who say that God desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us. So far the claim seems to be false.
Sometimes the history we have is unreliable and we shouldn’t be taking anyone’s word for it.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Heathen Dawn:
To call a theory scientific it must have two properties:
Genesis 1 might be called a scientific theory. It explains how and when the world we observe came into being. And it is falsifiable. We do make observations that prove the theory in Genesis 1 wrong.
Whoa, wait a minute.
To call a theory scientific it must have two properties:
- It explains, what we observe.
- It makes provable or falsifiable predictions.
ID does not fit parameter 2.
Genesis 1 might be called a scientific theory. It explains how and when the world we observe came into being. And it is falsifiable. We do make observations that prove the theory in Genesis 1 wrong.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Heathen Dawn:
If and when I discover a need for personal spirituality, I’ll examine my options; barring an accident, injury, or illness that changes my personality, you may be glad to hear that I would be overwhelmingly more likely to turn to some form of pagan belief than Christianity or similar organized religions. In fact, I find few, if any, redeeming values in Christianity other than the Golden Rule; all told Christianity is a package deal that I cannot in good conscience subscribe to.
Now, one fundamental problem between theists and atheists is that even such a mutually agreed upon standard is hard to impossible to come by. When you talk about instrumentation to detect the supernatural, you implicitely concur with what you wrote in the atheist’s catechism, while at the same time squarely siding with the principle behind ID, which removes the possibility of falsification. What you’re saying is that whatever supernatural phenomenon becomes open to detection by scientific means is then automatically subsumed into the body of science, while there’s always something else we just can’t yet get to. Perhaps, but there’s no point in pursuing this argument.
I have no problem granting that it is possible to erect a theistic view that is consistent and coherent with the natural world. It’s a slam dunk for Deists and an exercise in futility for the Abrahamic religions - the more assumptions you make and the more attributes you assign to deities, the more problems you run into. However, truth doesn’t follow from consistency…
To make a long story short, yes, I do believe you come up short in proof. The question is whether or not such proof is even possible.
There is a distinction between discussing theology without any ulterior motive and a debate with the intent to convert. I’m more than happy to participate in the former, but not open to the latter. For that matter, a debate with the intent to convert is intrinsically asymmetric - the party wishing to effect a conversion is not likely to reciprocate with the intended target and offer to abandon their own beliefs if they cannot answer counters or fail to convince. All I do is to level the playing field…
If and when I discover a need for personal spirituality, I’ll examine my options; barring an accident, injury, or illness that changes my personality, you may be glad to hear that I would be overwhelmingly more likely to turn to some form of pagan belief than Christianity or similar organized religions. In fact, I find few, if any, redeeming values in Christianity other than the Golden Rule; all told Christianity is a package deal that I cannot in good conscience subscribe to.
Your opinion and not something we need to discuss.
There is something I’d like to clarify. To convince, all that is needed is a mutually agreed upon standard of proof. Such a standard need not be objective, though, and the truth of the matter is yet another issue.
Now, one fundamental problem between theists and atheists is that even such a mutually agreed upon standard is hard to impossible to come by. When you talk about instrumentation to detect the supernatural, you implicitely concur with what you wrote in the atheist’s catechism, while at the same time squarely siding with the principle behind ID, which removes the possibility of falsification. What you’re saying is that whatever supernatural phenomenon becomes open to detection by scientific means is then automatically subsumed into the body of science, while there’s always something else we just can’t yet get to. Perhaps, but there’s no point in pursuing this argument.
I have no problem granting that it is possible to erect a theistic view that is consistent and coherent with the natural world. It’s a slam dunk for Deists and an exercise in futility for the Abrahamic religions - the more assumptions you make and the more attributes you assign to deities, the more problems you run into. However, truth doesn’t follow from consistency…
To make a long story short, yes, I do believe you come up short in proof. The question is whether or not such proof is even possible.
H
Heathen_Dawn
Guest
Actually ID does. The reason I don’t believe in ID is that it’s been falsified: it predicts that design would be intelligent, but what we find is unintelligent design (like bats having the relatively inefficient mammalian respiratory system while flightless birds like ostriches have the very efficient avian respiratory system—unintelligent design).
I did say “both parties,” wolp.
I used to hold the opinion that Christianity is all bad with no redeeming value whatsoever, but I now think differently. Once you get beyond the fire-insurance scheme, there is a richness in Christianity you can’t find in nearly any other religion. Christianity has the most important teaching that God is a Person who loves and wishes to be loved. Contrast this with Islam, which is a loveless religion, a religion of submission. My own form of Wicca is centred on a personal relationship with the Gods as well as nature worship.
Yes, my opinion. That the supernatural is a human invention is an opinion too. That’s the point why I brought this up.
No, I’m just trying to accommodate most atheist’s demands. You want scientific evidence, I just tell you the hard truth that scientific evidence for the supernatural is as yet missing because of technological limitations. There are other evidences for the supernatural, but they aren’t scientific, so most atheists won’t accept them.
I do not want to evade falsification. I’m just saying scientific scrutiny of all that is supernatural is currently impossible. Not because I’m a big, bad obscurantist but because of (here it is again) technological limitations.
Huh? Where did you get that idea about me from?! I never, ever argued for supernaturalism of the gaps. Hey, I even criticised Antony Flew for standing his Deism upon the gaps of knowledge.
N
ncgolf
Guest
Actually you are correct in saying that it will take a traumatic event to change your mind … but please don’t insult pagans with your support of their beliefs. The only reason to choose any belief is because it is true … and if it is true for some future event why wait. So you must find some truth in some unnamed pagan belief right now or your statement of “overwhelmingly more likely” is false. What then are the truths of the unnamed pagan belief that would convince you that is the way to go?
On another note … it is always interesting to read people’s thoughts on science’s role in proving God … cant be done. The scientific method will not work to absolutely prove God. The best anyone can do, IMHO, is to look at the different philosophical arguements (ie. Design, First Cause, Conscience) and see that God is more probable than not and go from there. That is the basis of faith … a leap not into darkness but into light. For atheists and agnostics that leap is monumentous and almost impossible to make.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Heathen Dawn:
The bottom line is that I believe you are wrong in trying to accomodate atheists in their demand for scientific proof. Even if such is possible, I doubt theists would enjoy the ramifications of deities that are open to scientific examinations. Which is another way of saying that never the twain shall meet.
My bad.
I’m willing to reconsider my opinions about Christianity, but I can only go so far. In a nutshell, I believe that there are good people, bad people, so-so people, but their spiritual beliefs do not enter into my judgement. Some people do what I consider the right thing in the name of Christianity, others commit what I consider unspeakable atrocities in the same name. If there is a positive message, it is amenable to complete corruption and I simply want no part of it.
I know that some people, even long-time atheists, acquire theistic beliefs due to personal and subjective experiences. Even if I wanted to argue this, I am not privy to what goes on in their mind, nor can I, nor do I want to be - which leaves me back at square one. Nothing in my life experience leads me to even suspect that one or more deities might exist. Since the supernatural is by definition outside of the realm of science, what remains is subjective.
The bottom line is that I believe you are wrong in trying to accomodate atheists in their demand for scientific proof. Even if such is possible, I doubt theists would enjoy the ramifications of deities that are open to scientific examinations. Which is another way of saying that never the twain shall meet.
For the record, whatever disagreements we have, I would never accuse you of anything that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
This is how I read your reply and perhaps I overinterpreted. Regarding Flew, I haven’t had time to track down an authoritative and authentic account of exactly what it is that he’s saying these days.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Please read more carefully. If I ever discover a need for personal spirituality, I am overwhelmingly more likely to turn to pagan beliefs. This is an incontrovertible statement of fact and not a reflection on the truth or untruth of pagan beliefs or the support thereof. I view religious beliefs as a means to solve a personal problem or to simply make me feel better and some type of paganism is most likely to work for me. I currently have no such needs, however; if and when I do I will shop for a religion that suits me best, even if I have to make up things as I go.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Heathen Dawn:
But I guess people haven’t even a common definition of what intelligent design means.
Another problem with ID is, that the people promoting it, have usually no idea how statistical mathmatics work and what randomness means. They impress people with ridiculously low chances, and then claim this can’t be possible by a “random” process.
Let us two play a game of poker. The chances of both opening hands combined are 51300501348096000 : 1, yet we hold the cards in our very hand.
Interesting.
But I guess people haven’t even a common definition of what intelligent design means.
Another problem with ID is, that the people promoting it, have usually no idea how statistical mathmatics work and what randomness means. They impress people with ridiculously low chances, and then claim this can’t be possible by a “random” process.
Let us two play a game of poker. The chances of both opening hands combined are 51300501348096000 : 1, yet we hold the cards in our very hand.
J
john_doran
Guest
i’d like to see you try that one out in vegas after your fifth consecutive royal flush at the poker tables…
seriously, though - i think you’re misunderstanding the objection.
the improbabilities of any particular hand in poker are irrelevant to determining the reasonability of a belief in how that particular distribution of cards was reached because you already KNOW how it was reached: by shuffling and dealing.
but when it comes to the origins of the universe and life, we don’t know how it happened. so. in attempting to figure it out, it’s totally appropriate to use statistical evidence.
it’s not a question of whether some event actually occurred, but how that event came about.
in other words, your poker example is disanalogous to the ID argument, because each asks totally different questions: the ID argument uses probabilities as evidence for or against an explanation for the existence of a certain state of affairs: we know ***that ***the universe and life exist, but don’t know how.
but in your poker example, the question is not how the hand was achieved - we already know that, since the example stipulates that it was randomly dealt.
statistitcal mathematics is only a good answer for the right question; and just because it can be used to answer the wrong question doesn’t in any way entail that there isn’t a right question.
J
jimmy
Guest
A decision is not a thing, it is an idea. My intelect is caused by God. So, it is not uncaused in that sense. My statement means that it is not caused by any physical stimulus like the shape of an atom or the properties of the atom, which is the basis for all processes in science.No?
Then what about the good old “nothing can come from nothing”? Are you telling me, there are things in this very universe, that are uncaused?
Thanks for disproving the Aquinate proof of God.
The point I was making was that there has to be something deeper than the physical inorder to cause the possibility of a decision and a complex thought.
My thesis is that God caused life - he may have used evolution to create the physical - and it consists of more than just a physical body that can be explained away by science, as it is now.
- Status